Please lets us work together on this, nobody is better then the other, just maybe more experience and that's all. Even with all the experience in the
world you will miss something, trust me I know. I'm just saying that together we have more chance to solve this.

I echo your sentiments, and respect your ideas.

I am still considering your "diffusion THROUGH a water droplet" theory. Keep up the good work. You MAY be onto something.

Earlier in this thread it was said that the mirror is curved, if you add that to the droplet of water theory, would that cause the image to turn as
shown by Ghislaino?

It has also been said that it can't be a projection of the reflection because there is nothing for it to project onto. If I'm understanding
correctly what has been said about the camera filling in the gaps, then is it not possible that there was a hazy mist acting as a screen to project
the image and the camera turned it into the clear blue sky?

I'm only asking because I don't know and if I don't ask I'll never know.

I think it ends up exactly where it is. No definitive proof either way. While it isn't satisfying for anyone, as someone that wants to believe there
are unknown "things" out there it is better than nothing. I think that makes sense. In other words it could still be anything really.

If i understand you correctly you are saying that the ufo pictured here, and other similar phenomena, aren't "nuts and bolts" ships/ghosts/etc but
are instead projected manifestations of the underlying thought processes and sub-conscious capabilities of the individual witnessing the phenomena?

In short, they are unconsciously and temporarily altering the fabric of reality to make something appear? Don't we call that Magic?

First post here (I know I'm supposed to make a greeting thread first & I will, I promise) but this thread caught my attention enough to take me from
lurker to member & I wanted to see if I could add my insight to the collective. I am in my mid 40's and an ex-professional photographer (meaning I no
longer shoot on a full time basis for clients), I got burned out & now after a 5 year hiatus I'm enjoying shooting again as a creative outlet. I'm
internationally published in the action sports world (Motocross was my niche) I have many MX magazine covers to my credit & 10 years in the field as a
working pro (1998-2008).

One thing I've learned is that when you are absolutely convinced you are right about someone or something they will prove you wrong time & time
again. Which is why I think it important to approach any provocative subject with all filters removed & an open mind. I feel it is pointless to debate
people's emotions or what they were "obviously thinking" because without extensive knowledge of this woman's personality, that would be an
exercise in futility & perhaps even if we did know her very well.

Having said that I'd like to comment on a few points that were brought up about the camera she used, when I was a working pro I used & still use a
Nikon D2X & let me tell you from an experience I had on a beach in Baja Mexico, you don't want to get caught at the wrong place & wrong time in a
foreign country with $15,000-$20,000 worth of camera gear. (to the uninitiated, a D2X body back then was 5 grand each and lenses range from $700 for
a fisheye to $1,500 for wide angle & telephoto up to $8,000 for a 400mm prime which was my lens of choice for action sports) now that is not an
indication of guilt on her part because plenty of professionals use point & shoots while on vacation - why? Because photography is their job, do you
like to take your work with you on vacation? Me neither but because some of the places I went I hated not having my pro gear so I'd bring mine. See,
now here are two examples of plausibility for & against her choice of camera (remember to remove those filters & chip away at what you do know, human
nature) someone mentioned she wasn't holding it or shooting it "professionally" but again, she was on vacation & probably her arms were tired from
taking filler shots of goats & scenery. I'll agree that shooting from a moving car is far less than optimum but it certainly is convenient if she
just wanted a record of the day.

I have actually had several photos published from a moving car for the record so to label her as fraud for that as well as choice of camera is very
thin. Now if she claimed to be a professional & this camera was all she used, I'd want to know her niche? Perhaps she specializes in APS photography
- Peter Lik uses a panorama noblex & has 3 galleries in Las Vegas ... Photographers especially know that specialization is a key to success. If she
only used this camera & worked making images for billboard use I would call foul for two reasons 1) billboard photos command a high dollar (usually)
2) they prefer a higher resolution image. This camera may be a 10 or 12 megapixel camera but megapixels are a marketing ploy by manufacturers. Sensor
size & density is far more important in terms of file data than a big MP number. And while manufacturers can get away with touting big megapixel
numbers what they don't shout at you is how small their sensor size is.

Now, I would find the only flaw in this picture & accompanying story to be that she is still anonymous & cannot be scrutinized & unfortunately for me
that is far too often the case when it comes to this subject. The devil is in the details & there simply isn't enough of the human side here for me
to give any credit to this image.

Personality traits, arrest records, family relationships, public morality, online presence are where the truth is more often found, there's an old
saying "if it looks like a duck & quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck"

Moreover, this subject is the ONE important subject for all of humanity - period. Who are we? Where did we come from? Why are we here? To be at all
ambiguous is cause for concern in my book, if you want to remain anonymous then please hold your photo until you have the courage & intelligence to
step forward in full light of day.

I think the point you are missing is not that it is a point and shoot camera, but which point and shoot camera. As a serious amateur photographer I
would not touch that camera, and neither would any professional. Most professionals as you would know back up their 2 main SLR's with a good quality
PnS - I have the Sony RX-100 (Best point and shoot ever made) then there is the RX1, or the Canon Powershot G15 or the Olympus XZ series...... And to
suggest the way she is holding it is because her arms night be tired, well, that's just laughable. I take hundreds of photo's per day when I travel.

The more I think about this the more I think it is a fake - I always say... If things don't add up the numbers must be wrong.

Originally posted by Phage
The "photographer did not see the object while taking the picture" always raises a flag for me.

I feel the same way, and I'm not sure if it's an object really in the air.
There's a ray of sunlight shining in the window that crosses over the ring on her finger. Is it possible the object is light reflecting off the ring
and side view mirror?

I don't agree that 'not seeing anything at the time of taking the image' should be a cause for doubt in itself.

The shutter of the camera was set at a very fast speed, meaning the object (whatever it is) could have been moving very rapidly, so fast that it
simply couldn't be seen by the Human eye as anything other than the briefest of glimpses...which most people would attribute to an insect or bird
zipping past at the extremes of our vision.

Another reason for not seeing the object, is 'Shooter' was looking into the car side mirror, not at the sky...couple that with a potentially very
rapidly moving object, and it becomes perfectly reasonable to not have visually noticed the object at the time of taking the shot.

If anything, it seems it was an absolute fluke of luck to have pressed the camera shutter at exactly the right moment to have captured the object at
all.

Originally posted by nothingwrong
As a serious amateur photographer I would not touch that camera

Really? Do you actually know what camera was used? And did you not read that she was not shooting professionally and was simply on holidays?
The RX100 costs about $650, and is a slightly better camera but is in a different league of cost.
The G15 is about $510, and is much bulkier.
The Olympus ZX series? Olympus don't make a ZX series.. If you mean the XZ, again, while a very nice camera, it's over $500..

The Canon? $260, despite having the large sensor like the G15 and XZ and a very useful lens.. For a cheapskate like me - it's a *great*
choice for a holiday camera. Btw.. I used to shoot professionally, from Bronica SQ /Hasselblad medium format wedding/portrait photography, thru
SLR's, and now spend a lot of my time doing *very* large stitched panoramas, even underwater.. - nowadays it's just a hobby, but I still own quite a
range of cameras, including some that you would no doubt despise, eg a little underwater Fuji.. I still manage to get some great images [modesty
permits] even if the equipment I have at hand isn't state of the art. It's the photography I enjoy, rather than bragging about, or wrongly
putting down, cameras.

I often take a small camera (one VERY like the S100) with me when i want something small, but capable enough for the images I am likely to encounter,
and not so expensive or fragile that I will be worrying about it in the sand/dust/heat/seaspray...

I think second guessing the camera that *anyone* chooses or uses is a rather pointless exercise, and is certainly not, especially in this case,
grounds for yelling fake..

And for anyone still waiting.. I haven't done my experiments with blue-white shopping bags yet, but I haven't forgotten.. I will be back, one day..

Um, yes, of course I know what camera was used, that is how I can have an opinion on it. Canon Powershot S100.

It has a 1/1.7" Type CMOS 12.1 MP sensor. Reasonable zoom, not great quality lens for a canon.

You can see from This Page that is is a very small high density sensor.

Odd that a professional would choose to shoot in Program auto mode.
Odd that a professional would shoot in 16:9 image size.

Odd that the native 16:9 setting for that camera is 4000 x 2448 (L, 9.8MP) but this picture is only 4000 x 2248 (9.0MP) but she claims the images are
not manipulated in any way? Did you spot that in the Exif data?

Odd that even though program shift was available she allowed the the system to chose f3.2 for this shot. Now I know that with such a small sensor
shallow depth of field is not an issue, but those goats were wondering about very slowly there would have been plenty of time to shift to a more
appropriate setting.

I spent ages trying to replicate how she holds the camera, I can't very odd. Here is a pic of me using my camera:

Notice my hand positions? The way she is holding it I am surprised she can even see the screen. Her hands would be blocking her view. Not that she is
actually looking at it she is looking straight ahead, and the camera is low and to her right.

And I have not even started on the "UFO"! There are way too many anomalies fro this to be true. Like why it is aligned horizontally with the camera
plane and not the horizon? I really do not accept the experts view which is - Oh! He doesn't seem to explain this. Handy!

If it does not add up the numbers are wrong. That's what I always say.

Originally posted by nothingwrong
Um, yes, of course I know what camera was used

Well, that's a start...

It has a 1/1.7" Type CMOS 12.1 MP sensor.

Yes, it does. The exact same size sensor as two of the more expensive cameras
*you* nominated.. That sensor is larger than the vast majority of point and shoots, which is the point I was making.

Reasonable zoom, not great quality lens for a canon.

Why did you edit out the bits about PRICE? - you are comparing it with cameras of twice the price or more. And if you have a problem with the
lens, can you explain exactly what the issue is, and how it affects the images in question... which you are saying were faked anyway???
I'm afraid your logic is escaping me.

You can see from This Page that is is a very small high density
sensor.

Which shows all sensor sizes for all cameras right up to medium format? It's actually a large sensor for a pocketable point and shoot.
Your source (DPREview) says the S100 has "a relatively large sensor (at least in compact camera terms).."

Odd that a professional would choose to shoot in Program auto mode.

Not odd at all. In fact, Program mode (as it's easy but allows access to adjustments that are not available in Full Auto), is what I use frequently
for this type of 'lazy' holiday shooting. Anything that requires more care, eg a good landscape scene (this is just a happy snap..), or in
my case for the panoramas I shoot or the night photography I do, then of course Program isn't suitable. Again, BE SPECIFIC - in what way has
Program Mode hurt this image or made it less 'authentic'?

Odd that a professional would shoot in 16:9 image size.

Why? Coz you don't like 16:9?

Odd that the native 16:9 setting for that camera is 4000 x 2448 (L, 9.8MP) but this picture is only 4000 x 2248 (9.0MP) but she claims the
images are not manipulated in any way? Did you spot that in the Exif data?

Oh dear. I'm sorry, but your research skills failed you badly here. Shouldn't you, before screaming fakery on such a trivial item - and
given that the EXIF data MATCHED the actual image - at least check the information you were using? Listen carefully.. the DPReview article
contains a MISPRINT. It's a typo.

The correct specifications for the camera for that mode are 4000 x 2248. Just in case there are any doubts, here's the CANON spec sheet for
that camera: Canon S100
Specification Sheet
Scroll down to 'Still Images and Capacity'. Any questions?

Note also that camer does not have a 4000 x 2248 setting:

BZZT. Repeating wrong information doesn't make it become right.. In future, cross check your claim against the ORIGINAL manufacturer's data to
avoid this sort of embarrassment.

So how did the image end up that size I wonder?

And I wonder .. how did you, as a researcher, continue down this path without even checking if you were following a wild goose?

Odd that even though program shift was available she allowed the the system to chose f3.2 for this shot.

It's a happy snap for heaven's sake. Trying to make something out of someone's mind-set or mode/setting choices is just not warranted.

I spent ages trying to replicate how she holds the camera, I can't very odd. Here is a pic of me using my camera:

Perhaps you might have done better ... if you had actually sat in a CAR.. Sigh..

The way she is holding it I am surprised she can even see the screen. Her hands would be blocking her view. Not that she is actually looking at
it she is looking straight ahead, and the camera is low and to her right.

So ... now you are suggesting that she faked the entire shot, or what? Seriously, why wouldn't she just take a nice simple image that *was* possible
to do, rather than go into contortions and conspiratorial mind-bending fakery scenarios - is your scenario that she faked lots of stuff just to mess
with our minds?? To fake the ufo all she had to do was add the 'blob' - but now you suggest that she added herself? If not, what is the point of
this line of 'enquiry'?

FTR, apart from different perspective - I only had a 28 eq. lens to hand , I managed to recreate it pretty well despite having longer arms than hers,
I bet. I'll post it later when i do the bag tests..

Now - the "expert" himself pointed out the horizontal alignment - please tell me about these imaginary points you speak of?
I can't see why the object would be perfectly aligned with the camera plane and not the horizon. It is, as you can see in the picture above. This is
yet another anomaly which is unexplained and adds to my suspicions.

I do get a bit .. er.. terse.. when I see debate about stuff that is not testable or particularly relevant, like the photographer's intentions, mood,
shooting style, or what camera they picked up and what mode it was in..
For a set up shot with lots of time and where the photog knew what they wanted to capture, maybe... In this case, no.

Anyway, I tend to disagree with the 'expert' opinion about horizontal alignment, also. First up, if this is something being blown by the wind, which
way does the wind tend to go? Vertical? So if the object is made of flexible material, eg plastic or paper or cloth or.. which way will that
material tend to 'spread'? Vertical?

Now, *is* it horizontally aligned? Well, here's the best version I have of the area of interest, enlarged ridiculously.

NOTE - see all those little square pixels? They are there because this enlargement was done properly, by simply enlarging the size of the
native pixels as the camera saved it. It is not interpolated (which adds false detail), and it is not altered in any other way.

I've done my best to find where I think the actual leftmost and rightmost extremities of the 'thing' would be, and put little crosses on those points
- one could argue they could be slightly lower or higher, but I think I've been pretty fair. Now, is that line joining them horizontal? Obviously
not. And that is despite the fact that by the camera sensor's nature, and especially once combined with the jpeg compression used to save the
image, the resulting image will *always* have a false tendency towards slightly 'squared off' data, and lines that are slightly skewed towards
horizontal or vertical. You can see this effect quite obviously in the two circles I drew - note how the 'detail' (which is effectively
only resolved down to about the 3-5 pixel level) tends to be squared off and aligned vertically or horizontally - if you examine the entire image you
will see the same thing everywhere. All cameras do that when saving jpeg's, and cheaper smaller cameras do it worse because of the nature of their
sensors.

Yet despite all that, it's clearly not precisely horizontal.. And if it was, given the conditions will tend to push it to horizontal, why would that
be highly significant? While we're on the topic, is it symmetrical? Of course it isn't.

If the argument is about the 'thing' being centred in the 'sky area', well, I'm sorry, but it just isn't. I'm happy to provide some numbers on that
too, but imo this is just wasting time - people looking for any trivial, cherry-picked attribute of the image to point to fakery.

That approach is NOT a part of genuine investigation.

PS Ironically, I have plenty of time to do my 'bag tests' today, but it's currently overcast and raining heavily.. Sigh.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.